Personalized Professional Learning for Elementary Bilingual Educators: A Policy Advocacy

73 Pages·2017·1.03 MB·English

National Louis University
Digital Commons@NLU
Dissertations
12-2016
Personalized Professional Learning for Elementary
Bilingual Educators: A Policy Advocacy Document
Nicole M. Robinson
Follow this and additional works at:https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/diss
Part of theEducational Leadership Commons
Recommended Citation
Robinson, Nicole M., "Personalized Professional Learning for Elementary Bilingual Educators: A Policy Advocacy Document"
(2016).Dissertations. 206.
https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/diss/206
This Dissertation - Public Access is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons@NLU. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@NLU. For more information, please [email protected].
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING FOR ELEMENTARY BILINGUAL
EDUCATORS: A POLICY ADVOCACY DOCUMENT

Nicole M. Robinson
Educational Leadership Doctoral Program

Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements of
Doctor of Education
in the Foster G. McGaw Graduate School

National College of Education
National Louis University
December 2016
Document Origination Statement Digital Commons @ NLU

This document was created as one part of the three-part dissertation requirement of the
National Louis University (NLU) Educational Leadership (EDL) Doctoral Program. The
National Louis Educational Leadership EdD is a professional practice degree program
(Shulman et al., 2006).
For the dissertation requirement, doctoral candidates are required to plan, research, and
implement three major projects, one each year, within their school or district with a focus
on professional practice. The three projects are:
 Program Evaluation
 Change Leadership Plan
 Policy Advocacy Document
For the Program Evaluation candidates are required to identify and evaluate a program
or practice within their school or district. The “program” can be a current initiative; a
grant project; a common practice; or a movement. Focused on utilization, the evaluation
can be formative, summative, or developmental (Patton, 2008). The candidate must
demonstrate how the evaluation directly relates to student learning.

In the Change Leadership Plan candidates develop a plan that considers organizational
possibilities for renewal. The plan for organizational change may be at the building or
district level. It must be related to an area in need of improvement, and have a clear target
in mind. The candidate must be able to identify noticeable and feasible differences that
should exist as a result of the change plan (Wagner et al., 2006).

In the Policy Advocacy Document candidates develop and advocate for a policy at the
local, state or national level using reflective practice and research as a means for
supporting and promoting reforms in education. Policy advocacy dissertations use critical
theory to address moral and ethical issues of policy formation and administrative decision
making (i.e., what ought to be). The purpose is to develop reflective, humane and social
critics, moral leaders, and competent professionals, guided by a critical practical rational
model (Browder, 1995).

Works Cited
Browder, L.H. (1995). An alternative to the doctoral dissertation: The policy advocacy
concept and the policy document. Journal of School Leadership, 5, 40-69.
Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shulman, L.S., Golde, C.M., Bueschel, A.C., & Garabedian, K.J. (2006). Reclaiming
education’s doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher, 35(3),
25-32.
Wagner, T., et al. (2006). Change leadership: A practical guide to transforming our
schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

ii
ABSTRACT
This policy advocacy document advocates a policy to strengthen an existing elementary
bilingual program through personalized professional development. Twin goals of the
proposed policy are to (1) increase student achievement and (2) increase bilingual teacher
retention. District 32’s bilingual program recently shifted from a Transitional Bilingual
Education (TBE) model to a Developmental Bilingual Education (DBE) model, which
emphasized biliteracy. As a small suburban school district with a rapidly rising Hispanic
and low-income student population, this shift raised awareness among district
administrators of the need for a new professional development model geared toward its
mostly inexperienced bilingual teachers. To be immediately effective, this new
professional development model would need to be more classroom-based, frequent, and
focused on sustained personalized professional learning. Key to providing this kind of in-
depth, individualized professional learning is hiring a full-time bilingual consulting
teacher. Browder’s (1995) policy advocacy needs analysis framework is used to analyze
the educational, economic, social, political, and moral/ethical dimensions of the proposed
policy, and to identify related best practices in professional learning for bilingual
educators. Guskey’s (2002) five-level professional development framework and
Escamilla’s (2014) biliteracy observation protocol are utilized in the policy’s
implementation plan and assessment plan.
ii i
PREFACE: LEADERSHIP LESSONS LEARNED
While writing the Change Leadership Plan a year ago, I began to realize that the
professional learning opportunities offered within Brighton School District 32 were not
sufficient for the growth of the bilingual teachers in the district. After reflecting upon the
high quality experiences provided to monolingual classroom teachers, I became
passionate about advocating for the same experiences for the bilingual teachers who had
been crying out for more support. I knew something had to be done when the most senior
teacher in the bilingual program at Taft Elementary School, where I serve as principal,
resigned just weeks before students were due to arrive in classrooms for the fall and I was
required to fill the position with yet another inexperienced bilingual teacher. No more
could we allow our bilingual students to suffer as we placed novice teachers in front of
them year after year. Teacher quality in the bilingual program had to be on the top of the
list of priorities within the district, and I knew it must be the focus of my policy advocacy
document.
Through researching and writing this policy advocacy document, I learned many
lessons essential for my current role as a principal and for my future as a district
administrator. The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO, 2015) publishes ten
Professional Standards for Educational Leaders, which serve as a guide for the role of
school administrators. The policy I advocate for in this document, to provide
personalized professional learning to bilingual educators, attends to each standard; in
particular, Standard 3: Equity and Cultural Responsiveness, Standard 6: Professional
Capacity of School Personnel, and Standard 10: School Improvement are addressed. By
iv
providing in-depth, intensive professional development to bilingual educators, we will
see increases in educational equity, teacher capacity, and student outcomes.
Advocating increased funding for professional learning for teachers might seem a
controversial or risky policy position to take, especially in smaller, cash-strapped
communities where many may not see or understand how sustained, focused learning to
improve teachers’ professional practice can and does positively affect student outcomes.
These community stakeholders, and even other professional educators, may believe it
more beneficial to put any additional dollars to use “directly” for students by hiring an
additional teacher, classroom aide, or more curriculum materials, for instance.
However, there is a bigger picture to consider. Nationwide, we see teacher
shortages, teachers leaving one district for another next door for better pay, particularly in
the hard-to-fill areas like bilingual education. And, each year, a growing number of
teachers simply leave the profession altogether, due in large part to the increasing
demands and responsibilities placed on educators. Principals and school district hiring
officials have proclaimed for years that university teacher education programs do not
adequately prepare teachers for their jobs. At the same time, first-year, novice, and
significant numbers of veteran teachers have been asking for more on-site, in-house
professional learning needed to address the educational and social-emotional needs of a
rapidly changing, more diverse, and more mobile student population. It is time to invest
in the professional learning needs of our teachers, and in particular, our bilingual
educators, to ensure that students in all classrooms receive a high-quality education.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………….. iii
PREFACE……………………………………………………………………………….. iv
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………… ix
LIST OF FIGURES……..……………………………………………………………… x
SECTION 1: VISION STATEMENT………………………………………….............. 1
Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………..…...... 1
Critical Issues……………………..…………………………………………...……. 3
Recommended Policy and Envisioned Effects…….……...……………………..….. 5
SECTION 2: ANALYSIS OF NEED…..……………………………………..……....... 8
Introduction……………………………………...………………………………… 8
Educational Analysis……………...………………………………………..……… 8
Economic Analysis……………...……………………………………………….… 11
Social Analysis……………...………………………………………………...…… 14
Political Analysis………………...………………………………….………..……… 15
Moral and Ethical Analysis……………...………………………………………… 17
SECTION 3: ADVOCATED POLICY STATEMENT………………………………... 20
Policy Goals and Objectives…………………………………………………………. 20
Increase the Effectiveness of Bilingual Teachers………………………………… 20
Improve Retention Rates of Bilingual Teachers…………………………………. 22
Provide for Consistent Implementation of Biliteracy Strategies…………………. 23
Improve Student Learning Outcomes…………………………………………….. 24
Stakeholder Needs, Values, and Preferences……………………………...………. 24
v i
Rationale for Validity of the Policy………………………………………………….. 25
SECTION 4: POLICY ARGUMENT………………………………………………….. 27
Counter-Argument…………………………………………………………………… 27
Argument…………………………………………………………………………….. 28
SECTION 5: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN………………………………….. 32
Hiring Practices……………………………………………………………………. 32
Staff Development Plan……………………………………………………………… 33
Training for the Bilingual Consulting Teacher…………………………………... 34
Staff Development for Participating Teachers…………………………………… 35
Time Schedules……………………………………………………………………… 36
Program Budget……………………………………………………………………… 37
Progress Monitoring Activities………………………………………………………. 39
Participants’ Reactions and Learning…………………………………………….. 40
Organizational Change and Participants’ Use of New Knowledge………………. 41
Student Learning Outcomes……………………………………………………… 42
SECTION 6: POLICY ASSESSMENT PLAN………………………………………… 43
Evaluation of the Policy’s Outcomes and Results…………………………………… 43
Assessing Goal 1: Increase the Effectiveness of Bilingual Teachers…………….. 43
Assessing Goal 2: Improve Retention Rates of Bilingual Teachers……………… 44
Assessing Goal 3: Provide for Consistent Implementation of Biliteracy
Strategies…………………………………………………………………………. 45
Assessing Goal 4: Increase Student Learning Outcomes………………………… 45
Responsible Parties…………………………………………………………………... 46
vi i
School and District Administrators………………………………………………. 46
Bilingual Consulting Teacher…………………………………………………….. 47
Bilingual Teachers………………………………………………………………... 47
SECTION 7: SUMMARY IMPACT STATEMENT…………………………………... 49
Rationale for Advocated Policy……………………………………………………… 49
Stakeholder Needs and Values Represented……………………………………...…. 50
REFERENCE LIST……………………………..……………………………..………... 53
APPENDIX A: PANORAMA TEACHER SURVEY………………………………...... 59
APPENDIX B: LITERACY SQUARED OBSERVATION PROTOCOL……………... 60

vi ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – 2015 PARCC ELA Scores…………………………………………………… 10
Table 2 – 2015 PARCC Mathematics Scores…………………………………………… 10
Table 3 – Timeline for Policy Implementation…………………………………………. 36
Table 4 - Anticipated Budget to Support the Addition of a Bilingual Consulting
Teacher…………………………………………………………………………………... 38

ix